TracewiseCase ConsoleFraud Investigation Agent
all cases

HHG-005

legitimateClosed — Legitimate

no pattern identified

Case HHG-005 is closed as legitimate with a fraud probability of 0.12, based on the finding that transaction 3523199 for $100.07 on card C02923-K1 matched the customer's established product category and billing region despite occurring on a new device. The investigation reached its maximum depth limit after two attempts to query device neighbors for device_id_15 were refused because the identifier was recognized as a raw dataset column name rather than a valid entity ID. The final action of CLOSE_NO_FRAUD was selected via the auto route under rule R0: policy default, settled low, no rule triggered, reflecting the lack of corroborating fraud evidence and the resolution of the initial model score of 0.54.

exposure
$0.00
affected txns
0
connected cards
0
prior cases cited
5
likely legitimate
fraud probability
0.150.300.700.85

stop_reason — Probability 0.12 with at least two independent evidence sources supporting no fraud; stopping per policy §6.

recommendation historyunchanged

Initial recommendation

before · on the evidence gathered so far
  1. CLOSE_NO_FRAUDAutoR0: policy default, settled low, no rule triggered

Final recommendation

after · no revision required
  1. CLOSE_NO_FRAUDAutoR0: policy default, settled low, no rule triggered

The evidence settled the question without changing the recommended course of action.

entity neighbourhood1 cards · 0 devices
HHG-005-CARD
shared devicecard under investigationflaggedconnected card
policy trace · R1–R100 of 10 predicates fired

Every rule below is a deterministic predicate evaluated against this case’s evidence — not a model’s assertion of an outcome. The engine checks all ten; most do not apply here, and that is shown deliberately.

R1
did not fire
Single signal only, fraud probability below 0.70 — must precede any block.
R2
did not fire
Customer was asked to validate and denied the charge.
R3
did not fire
Customer confirmed the charge as their own.
R4
did not fire
No customer reply within 24 hours.
R5
did not fire
3+ sub-$5 online authorizations within an hour on one card, then a larger purchase.
R6
did not fire
Device profile, billing region, or recipient email shared across multiple cards in one window.
R7
did not fire
Disputed charge matches the customer's own recurring pattern — merchant, amount, monthly.
R8
did not fire
Verdict uncertain with exposure over $500, or evidence conflicts.
R9
did not fire
Fits none of the five documented patterns, and abuse is coordinated or repeated across customers.
R10
did not fire
BLOCK_ALL_CARDS was proposed — requires 2+ cards confirmed fraud or confirmed compromised credentials, else downgrades to a single-card BLOCK_CARD.
precedent retrieval · graphRAG5 cases retrieved

The closed-case history runs 4,665 confirmed fraud to 900 cleared — a single merged ranking over that history returns almost nothing but incriminating cases and pushes every verdict toward blocking. Retrieval runs as two separate pools, confirming and exonerating, so that imbalance cannot silently decide the case.

Confirming precedent(3)

  • CC-0823
  • CC-0307
  • CC-0499

Exonerating precedent(2)

  • CC-0699
  • CC-0234

Drawn from 5,565 closed investigations.

evidence ledger · 11 itemsprovenance & signals

  • 1 online transaction(s) on card C02923-K1 -- T3523199 ($100.07) -- came from a device first marked 'New' for this account (id_15=New)

    Graph
    query:card_window(card_id=C02923-K1)T3523199

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0823 (confirmed fraud, $100.07 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.27), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0823)CC-0823

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0307 (confirmed fraud, $25.23 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.28), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0307)CC-0307

  • Precedent (confirming): CC-0499 (confirmed fraud, $100.13 exposure): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.28), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0499)CC-0499

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0699 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.23), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0699)CC-0699

  • Precedent (disconfirming): CC-0234 (cleared as legitimate): semantically similar analyst notes (cosine distance 0.23), no direct structural overlap

    Graph
    query:prior_case_candidates(case=CC-0234)CC-0234

  • Flagged transaction's product category and billing region match this customer's established history

    Graph
    query:customer_baseline(customer_id=C02923)T3523199

  • Agent elected to expand the investigation to the shared-device neighbourhood. Reasoning: YES The new device marker combined with in-character activity suggests a potential shared device compromise that could extend to other cards.

    Graph
    llm_decision:expand_device_neighbourhood(case=HHG-005)C02923-K1

  • Agent proposed device_neighbors(device_id=device_id_15), refused: that looks like a raw dataset column name, not a real entity id -- running it would waste a query rather than gather evidence. Full params: {'device_id': 'device_id_15', 'anchor': '2016-12-08 03:38:37', 'hours': 2160}

    Graph
    llm_plan:rejected(column_as_id, depth=1)

  • Agent proposed device_neighbors(device_id=device_id_15), refused: that looks like a raw dataset column name, not a real entity id -- running it would waste a query rather than gather evidence. Full params: {'device_id': 'device_id_15', 'anchor': '2016-12-08 03:38:37', 'hours': 2160}

    Graph
    llm_plan:rejected(column_as_id, depth=2)

  • Confidence check on gathered evidence: medium -- The investigation has reached its maximum depth limit (3 of 3). The evidence presents a mixed signal: the transaction matches the customer's established baseline (product and region), which is a strong disconfirming factor, but it occurred on a new device, which is a risk factor. The precedent cases are split (3 confirming fraud, 2 disconfirming), and the attempts to expand the device neighborhood were rejected due to invalid entity IDs. Since further digging is impossible due to the depth limit and the signals are contradictory (baseline match vs. new device), the case is ready for handoff to the policy engine to weigh these factors.

    Graph
    llm_decision:confidence_gate(case=HHG-005, depth=3)
prior cases · memory5 cited

Confirming precedent

  • CC-0823Supports fraud
  • CC-0307Supports fraud
  • CC-0499Supports fraud

Disconfirming precedent

  • CC-0699Exonerates
  • CC-0234Exonerates
Stop reasonProbability 0.12 with at least two independent evidence sources supporting no fraud; stopping per policy §6.
Tool calls0
Tokens0
Latency0.0s